Arvind Kejriwal has expressed his inability to participate in the ongoing Delhi excise policy case proceedings before Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, stating that he cannot, in good conscience, "argue as though nothing is amiss."

In a poignant letter addressed to Justice Sharma, Kejriwal asserted that the Court’s recent dismissal of his recusal application—and the language used to describe his plea as an "assault on the institution"—made it impossible for him to believe he would receive an impartial hearing.

He reiterated his concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest, specifically pointing to Justice Sharma's association with the Adhivakta Parishad and RTI data showing her children’s extensive empanelment and high volume of case assignments from the Union Government, arguing that these circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias that no fair-minded citizen could ignore.

Arvind Kejriwal said, "In my own conscience, I have now reached a point where I can no longer meaningfully participate in these proceedings without feeling that I am lending my presence to a process in which my faith, in this specific context, stands deeply shaken. I cannot, in good conscience, argue as though nothing is amiss in these proceedings."

Kejriwal mentioned that he originally sought Justice Sharma's recusal because he had a genuine fear that justice would not be seen to be done. After the court dismissed his application on April 20, 2026, he felt that his lawful request was treated as a personal attack on the judge and the institution. He explained that this misunderstanding makes it impossible for him to believe he will receive an impartial hearing.

In the letter, he said, "It was in that spirit that I had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court by way of an application seeking recusal in the above referred case. I did so because there existed in my mind a genuine apprehension regarding whether justice would not only be done, but also be seen to be done in the present case. After the dismissal of that application by order dated 20 April 2026, I have reflected deeply on the course now open to me. My well-grounded apprehensions, I say with utmost respect, have not been removed. After the said judgment, I am left with the painful and inescapable impression that what I had urged as a lawful plea of apprehension was received and answered as a personal attack upon Your Ladyship and as an assault on the institution itself. Those are not, with respect, answers to the case I had brought. They show me that my plea of apprehension has been judicially understood as a personal and institutional affront. That understanding itself now makes it impossible for me to believe that I can receive a hearing which appears impartial in this Court."

The letter highlighted two main concerns regarding a conflict of interest. First, Kejriwal pointed to the Justice Sharma repeated public association with the RSS’s legal front, the Akhil Bharatiya Adhivakta Parishad (ABAP). He said that politically, they have been the staunchest opponents of the ruling dispensation at the Centre. 

"Ideologically, myself and my party are strongly opposed to RSS ideology. When Your Ladyship has been frequently attending their programmes, how can I hope to get justice from this Hon’ble Court? I may also respectfully note that the concern I had expressed is not wholly alien to judicial ethos. Former Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka recently stated publicly that, had he been invited by Adhivakta Parishad while serving as a sitting judge, he would have politely declined because, in his understanding, the organisation had political inclinations. I refer to this only to indicate that the apprehension I expressed was neither fanciful nor idiosyncratic", he added.

Second, Kejriwal raised serious concerns about the children of Justice Sharma. He stated that both children are on multiple legal panels for the Union Government and receive case assignments directly from the Solicitor General, who is the opposing counsel in this matter. He cited RTI data showing that Justice Sharma's son received over 5,900 case dockets in a short period, leading to substantial financial remuneration.

"If more cases are assigned to them, they get more fees. The RTI material that I had verified and placed before Your Ladyship showed that your son was marked an extraordinarily high number of dockets—5,904 between 2023 and 2025. That places him among the top ten counsels receiving the highest number of such allocations out of a pool of roughly 700 combined panel counsels for Supreme Court, while several others received only a handful of matters, and in some instances as little as a single case in an entire year", he said.

Kejriwal noted that the language used in the judgment rejecting his recusal further damaged his confidence. He felt the court viewed his plea as an attempt to "intimidate" or "taint" the judge. He concluded that in such a politically sensitive case, an ordinary citizen would find it difficult to believe the court could rule against the Union Government or the Solicitor General.

He stated, "It is in these circumstances that I ask: how can an ordinary citizen believe that this Hon’ble Bench can rule against the Solicitor-General, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the Union government, especially in a politically sensitive case like this one? In these circumstances, the outcome appears to be strongly tilted in one direction irrespective of the merits, does it not become futile for me to continue participating in the process as though it were an impartial adjudication? In the eyes of a vast number of citizens, the outcome of these proceedings will appear foretold not because of the weight of evidence, but because of these disturbing surrounding circumstances."

Arvind Kejriwal emphasized that the question of whether he will get justice has become a matter of widespread public concern, reaching far beyond the courtroom into the homes of ordinary citizens. He argued that when the public’s confidence in the fairness of a proceeding is shaken, the loss is sustained not just by the accused, but by the entire judicial institution.

Kejriwal reiterated the sacred democratic principle that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done." He clarified that his stand is not "against" the judiciary—noting that he himself is currently free because of judicial relief—but rather against a specific situation that he believes asks the public to ignore plain facts regarding potential conflicts.

To support his argument, he cited historical precedents of judicial ethics where judges voluntarily recused themselves or sought transfers to avoid the appearance of conflict: 1. Justice Sujoy Paul (2024): Sought transfer from the Madhya Pradesh High Court because his son was practicing there. 2. Justice Atul Sreedharan (2023): Requested a transfer for similar reasons involving his daughter’s practice. 3. Justice V. Sivaraman Nair: Requested a transfer to another state once his daughter and daughter-in-law began practicing in the same High Court.

"In all the three examples, stemming from the same issue Your Ladyship today faces, the course adopted by the honourable Judges was to recognise that justice must remain above even a shadow of doubt and controversy. Far from diminishing the institution, such acts have only set high standards of judicial ethics and strengthened the people’s faith in the judiciary. However, in the present case, far beyond mere shadows of possible doubt, there exists demonstrable and irrefutable evidence of both of Your Ladyship’s children practising before the same High Court, at the pleasure of the Union government, and that one of them has been marked a high volume of cases/dockets by the very same law officer who now appears before Your Ladyship in a politically sensitive matter", he said.

On April 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case, ruling that the plea failed to meet the legal standard of "reasonable apprehension" of bias. 

In a detailed order, Justice Sharma observed that the applicant's grievances regarding the "extraordinary speed" of proceedings and her previous judicial findings were legally unsubstantiated, noting that the same judicial practices were never questioned when orders were passed in the party's favor.

Appearing in person, Kejriwal personally argued his application seeking the recusal of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma from hearing the CBI's challenge against his discharge in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Mehta characterized the plea as a "mala fide" attempt by Arvind Kejriwal and other respondents to choose their own Bench through strategic character assassination.

Previously, the High Court issued notice to the CBI regarding an application filed by Arvind Kejriwal seeking the recusal of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma from the Delhi excise policy case. Appearing in person, the Aam Aadmi Party's Leader informed the court that he would argue the recusal application himself, asserting that he has not authorized any legal counsel for this specific plea.

On March 9, the High Court had issued notice to Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha, and 20 others on a petition filed by the CBI challenging their discharge in the Delhi excise policy case. The Court also stayed the operation of the trial court's "scathing remarks" and the direction for a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s investigating officers, terming such observations "uncalled for" at this stage.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts discharged the accused after finding that the CBI failed to establish a prima facie case. The judge stated that the voluminous chargesheet contained numerous gaps and lacked support from witness statements or documents.

Regarding Arvind Kejriwal, the court ruled he was implicated without any cogent material, while it found no evidence to charge Manish Sisodia. The trial court’s order included a sharp critique of the CBI's investigation. The judge noted "misleading averments" in the chargesheet and observed that the evidence presented did not match the claims made by the agency. Consequently, the court ordered a departmental inquiry against the CBI’s Investigating Officer to address these lapses.

In its revision petition, the CBI argues that the trial court’s decision is legally flawed. The agency contends that the judge conducted a "mini-trial" by performing an in-depth evaluation of evidence that is typically reserved for a full trial, rather than the charge-framing stage. The CBI is seeking to overturn the discharge and stay the order for an inquiry against its officer.

Tags: